PSA: WG now deciding which ship can be nerfed on a whim

[bobtherterrible]

What would you prefer:

 

OP ships get removed from game and become unavailable to newer players creating an unfortunate situation depending on your join date

or

OP ships get tweaked a bit?

 

I guess in the case of the Thud it's both, but there are quite a few ships I see that I'd really quite like but are no longer available outside the slot machine.

[JG4_sKylon]

12 minutes ago, bobtherterrible said:

What would you prefer:

 

OP ships get removed from game and become unavailable to newer players creating an unfortunate situation depending on your join date

or

OP ships get tweaked a bit?

 

I guess in the case of the Thud it's both, but there are quite a few ships I see that I'd really quite like but are no longer available outside the slot machine.

 

or

 

OP ships never get released because WG finally does their job.

[bobtherterrible]

3 minutes ago, JG4_sKylon said:

 

or

 

OP ships never get released because WG finally does their job.

I think the idea is that people buy them to pay to keep the game profitable and therefore viable.

Most companies like to make money, it's kinda the point.

[KamiKatze_Streamer]

Vor 21 Minuten, JG4_sKylon sagte:

 

or

 

OP ships never get released because WG finally does their job.

Ha ha ha ha best joke Made my day

 

Say hello to Austin and Franklin D. Roosevelt 

 

[Verblonde]

1 hour ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Where I am getting at: HOW can we trust a ship will not be nerfed when we buy it with cash when WG can decide to throw them into Armory for coal (Aigle, Blyska, Anshan as examples), and later slap the nerf label on them when convenient ?

This.

I do wonder if WG are actively trying to muddy the waters here, to deliberately confuse the customers. When Hyuga was released, one incidence of the ship (Armoury or shop; I don't recall) carried the 'may be nerfed' label, and the other didn't; at the time, I put it down to WG being incompetent, but I now wonder if it's deliberate.

 

If we get a situation where no-one is entirely sure which things are nerfable and which aren't, then perhaps WG are hoping that they'll be able to get away with messing with ostensibly 'non-nerfable' ships with minimal outcry?

 

If WG are retrospectively applying the nerf label to old ships, they aren't breaking their EULA, but they are breaking their word (although, really, does that actually surprise anyone?); they also are making the older premiums less of a viable commercial proposition - as with the newer ones, you now have less time to get your money's worth from a premium ship, so making a purchase perhaps less likely.

[Gwynbleidd11]

This lead to more balance so it's clearly a good way. If someone still thinks opposite they should just whining about balance problems, since they clearly don't want it. Nerfs or buffs are done on purpose, just check the recent list of changes

[viceadmiral123]

Can't wait for Gulio Cesare and Kamikaze R rebalancing, as well as a few other well known ships in the same basket.

[Animalul2012]

Did Lesta heard the tragedy of type 59 the tier 8 t-54? Or the supposed changes of premium matchmaking tanks? Or how WG WOT team decided to remove gun rammer from italian medium tanks but the premium progeto 46 got it integrated into the tank and actually got buffed? NO? They will soon find out and it wont be preety for them, RU wont allow it and neither bussines practices.

[KratosTheUnforgiving]

WG will never clearly state what the policy is on nerfing, they will mask, hide, lie, cheat (have yet to steal, it may come) all the way to the bank !

 

Don't trust them, don't pay them, until they change their ways.

 

Will I be paying dubs to complete dockyard DD, nope, talking the freebies and running, while showing  WarGambling 2 fingers.

[SV_Kompresor]

3 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Yes it is. And without the warning in Armory ...

Good, because it doesn't need it then.

[Verblonde]

37 minutes ago, Gwynbleidd11 said:

This lead to more balance so it's clearly a good way. If someone still thinks opposite they should just whining about balance problems, since they clearly don't want it. Nerfs or buffs are done on purpose, just check the recent list of changes

I smell Google translate, so I may not be reading your original intent, however:

• Balancing premium ships is good for the game overall; I don't think there is much doubt about that (provided it's done well, of course).
• The problems arise when dealing with the matter of content that people paid real money for; there is quite a lot of consumer law that forbids changing the nature of a purchase after money has changed hands.
• This previous issue would be entirely irrelevant - beyond optics - if WG offered cash refunds (not doubloons, nor any other in-game token - cash) for nerfed premiums, but we know how they feel about that.

My personal view is that there is nothing wrong with all new premiums carrying the 'nerfable' label (quite the reverse, although as I've said elsewhere it does make them less desirable purchases), but there is a lot wrong with retrospectively making older premiums (that were not sold with the 'nerfable' label) newly nerfable *unless* full cash refunds are offered.

 

Offer cash refunds and there is no problem: every existing owner then makes the choice - money back, or have premiums liable to nerfs. Personally, I think I'd probably keep hold of all my premiums regardless - Kami is notorious, for instance, but my WR is higher in the ostensibly weaker silver equivalent...

[Yedwy]

4 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

This basically means that they can now decide that ANY premium or other ship can be changed as long as they do a new availability campaign for it.

TBH as long as its a free to get campaign I dont mind that one bit

[Miscommunication]

Ships get "balanced" all the time, even old premiums. Do you not remember (for example) when they changed the fuse arm time on Hood's AP shells so that it would hurt DDs and light cruisers less?

 

This has been happening for ages. Old premiums get powercreeped all the time - look at how good Nikolai used to be once upon a time, now nobody plays her because she has no AA.

[Bindolaf_Werebane]

4 hours ago, Miragetank90 said:

You would think that people would be happy, honestly, that they are prepared to apply balance fixes even to prems or whatever if need be, and not just silver ships. 

WG has pushed a lot of crappy decisions, but this isn't one of them. 

 

In other, related news, the ''WoWs is pay2win'' camp is getting torpedoed. 

Look, you're not wrong. However, who in their right mind would buy the next "powerful" (OP) ship, if they know it can (will) be nerfed later?

 

Let's have WG not produce OP ships, you say? I'm with you! However nerfing for-money purchased ships, is a bad idea from a marketing perspective.

[Zigiran]

3 hours ago, bobtherterrible said:

What would you prefer:

 

OP ships get removed from game and become unavailable to newer players creating an unfortunate situation depending on your join date

or

OP ships get tweaked a bit?

 

I guess in the case of the Thud it's both, but there are quite a few ships I see that I'd really quite like but are no longer available outside the slot machine.

The problem here is with: OP ships get tweaked a bit.

What is "A bit"?

 

Does this mean that WG can release a premium T8 cruiser with Smolensk dpm....  and then 4 months later, after thousands of people bought the ship, hit it with the nerf hammer so hard that it can not win a fight against a T5 cruiser?

But hey, besides this nerf, WG also release a new OP ship you can buy... guaranteed OP for a few months before it will be murdered and WG will release the next OP ship. Etc, etc.

 

This is why the communtity wants WG to release balanced premiums and prevent this entire problem.

[Yedwy]

4 minutes ago, Zigiran said:

Does this mean that WG can release a premium T8 cruiser with Smolensk dpm....  and then 4 months later, after thousands of people bought the ship, hit it with the nerf hammer so hard that it can not win a fight against a T5 cruiser?

Yes that means EXACTLY that BUT it not likely to be quite so drastic, they are prob trying to cut the developement circle of premiums down

[Zigiran]

5 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Yes that means EXACTLY that BUT it not likely to be quite so drastic, they are prob trying to cut the developement circle of premiums down

Yeah, it was an exaggeration, but the point still stands: they can release (slightly) OP ships, get a ton of cash and then nerf them to normal lvls while at the same time release the next OP ship.

[Yedwy]

5 minutes ago, Zigiran said:

Yeah, it was an exaggeration, but the point still stands: they can release (slightly) OP ships, get a ton of cash and then nerf them to normal lvls while at the same time release the next OP ship.

Yep as in contrast to the constant powercreep that we have now where it happens "naturally"

[KratosTheUnforgiving]

Funny how at the moment there are many issues about the game and Wargambling itself being discussed that have gone on for many weeks/pages, and yet rarely do you get a WG employee just stand up saying this is what we want/direction/plan even if not set in stone, just so we can see a glimps in to the future and Wargamblings mindeset, yet nobody !

 

A simple task, just show us roadmap 1st Jan of what is coming that year, so players can plan ahead/make decisions, instead of drip feeding each patch.

[Thalandor_gaming]

applying buffs and nerfs as needed in order to create some kind of balance is THE most basic feature in any other multiplayer game. DotA, LoL, Overwatch, Diablo 3 seasons wouldnt work if changes to heroes, characters or items would come once in a blue moon. And their playerbase pays a  lot more €/$ for cosmetic skins then we do for functioning ships. So the argument that ships that can be obtained with hard cash shouldnt be changed is pretty weak.

[Myrmix]

12 minutes ago, Paranoid_Potato said:

Funny how at the moment there are many issues about the game and Wargambling itself being discussed that have gone on for many weeks/pages, and yet rarely do you get a WG employee just stand up saying this is what we want/direction/plan even if not set in stone, just so we can see a glimps in to the future and Wargamblings mindeset, yet nobody !

I'm certain they only cared about forum/contributer input in the first few years.

Now WoWs is rolling by itself and has enough no player input so they can align everything to max profiting, as they do with WoT.

They just have to test yet how far they can push their prices and practices (like the upcoming flag-achievement "nerf") until we complain and they dial back 5cm after pushing ahead 1m.

 

The forum here is now just a mostly ignored place for people to vent and managed by some with less and less leverage in the company who are paid to deal with us.

[bobtherterrible]

47 minutes ago, Zigiran said:

 

 

Does this mean that WG can release a premium T8 cruiser with Smolensk dpm....  and then 4 months later, after thousands of people bought the ship, hit it with the nerf hammer so hard that it can not win a fight against a T5 cruiser?

But hey, besides this nerf, WG also release a new OP ship you can buy... guaranteed OP for a few months before it will be murdered and WG will release the next OP ship. Etc, etc.

 

 

I guess they could try, but next time they offer something similar the uptake might be reduced somewhat due to the negative publicity it would create. This would be bad for business.

[Verblonde]

14 minutes ago, Thalandor_gaming said:

So the argument that ships that can be obtained with hard cash shouldnt be changed is pretty weak.

It's a bit more complex than that: as I hope is obvious, I think that having nerfable premiums (few will object to their premiums being buffed) is probably a good thing, for game health, provided WG still sell enough to keep the lights on.

 

The issue isn't whether or not premiums can be nerfed, but whether the status of an older premium that was sold under the 'no nerfs' policy should be liable to change such that it can later be nerfed after people paid real money for it.

 

Like I said earlier, I have no problem with such a change *provided full cash refunds are offered* to existing purchasers; personally, I would probably keep all mine, but that's the overall solution. Of course, WG hates refunds, so it'll never happen.

 

If I were WG, and assuming they aren't really changing existing premiums' statuses, I would just put out a statement explaining why Kirov is being set to nerfable (presumably, because no-one paid real money directly for her, assuming that's true), and assure people that the status of existing premiums won't be change retrospectively. If they are changing the status of existing for-money premiums without real money refunds offered, then good luck with managing that PR disaster...!

[zengaze]

WG are a bunch of greedy scum, they have been wanting to play the bait and switch for years, this disclaimer points to that is what they are going to do. If you give them money, and they change what you paid for, it's on you for being the idiot who gave them money.

[zengaze]

1 hour ago, Yedwy said:

Yes that means EXACTLY that BUT it not likely to be quite so drastic, they are prob trying to cut the developement circle of premiums down

No that is exactly what their business model will be. Bait and Switch, is right in WGs ethics. They don't give a [edited]about anything else than getting money from your pocket into theirs.